4 ms·

Flock Reports to Police If It Thinks Car Movement Patterns "Suspicious"

81 points by gscott 1y ago

FireBeyond 1y ago
This sadly doesn't surprise me, at all. Flock's founders vision is that Flock will "eliminate all crime", and as an ex-employee, it's not an aspirational quote - he is quite literal. All of the ethics around data gathering that you heard during recruitment is gone, and it's all about sharing all the data you can, and trying to speed run to a Minority Report style future. Their data transparency report is ... a lot less than transparent. I'd estimate that a large number of agencies using Flock are not reported on their "Agencies using Flock" page. Just in my county and the next one over, I can name at least half a dozen agencies using Flock (and it's not even an issue on the part of the agency - my local PD and Sheriff will refer to Flock hits on their FB posts multiple times a week with respect to incidents. But "strangely", neither agency is listed as a Flock-using Agency on their transparency site).
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  > Flock's founders vision is that Flock will "eliminate all crime" And he quite possibly genuinely believes it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  - hattmall 1y ago
    Is that even good intentions? "Crime" is mostly how the world progresses.
    - leobg 1y ago
      Another way to see it is that Flock merely wants to place itself at the top of the crime food chain.
duxup 1y ago
“Sorry sir, computer says you are suspicious.” That kind of opaque justification seems ripe for abuse.
- FireBeyond 1y ago
  It's intentional. Flock will bend over backwards to help police, whether they should or shouldn't be.
ChrisArchitect 1y ago
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44860000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44860000
delichon 1y ago
What would a constitutional amendment that could head off the panopticon look like? How about The people shall be secure against surveillance of their persons, data, communications, and movements. No government shall collect, compel, or purchase such information except upon a warrant founded on probable cause. Mass or indiscriminate surveillance is prohibited. edit: added "or purchase" per comment.
- solid_fuel 1y ago
  I believe this wording may leave a loophole, allowing the government to purchase such information from a 3rd party.
  - DANmode 1y ago
    As it is now.
- elevation 1y ago
  In the text above, “Warrant” is used in the colloquial sense (a judicial permission slip) rather than in the literal sense (the extenuating circumstances that prompt or “warrant” the action by law enforcement.) I recommend replacing the language “warrant founded on probable cause” with a statement more specifically limiting the government. For instance, the fourth amendment allows the government to search and seize ONLY IF it can describe beforehand l specifically the scope of the search. Such specific language would also benefit this provision.

81 points by gscott 1y ago

This sadly doesn't surprise me, at all. Flock's founders vision is that Flock will "eliminate all crime", and as an ex-employee, it's not an aspirational quote - he is quite literal. All of the ethics around data gathering that you heard during recruitment is gone, and it's all about sharing all the data you can, and trying to speed run to a Minority Report style future. Their data transparency report is ... a lot less than transparent. I'd estimate that a large number of agencies using Flock are not reported on their "Agencies using Flock" page. Just in my county and the next one over, I can name at least half a dozen agencies using Flock (and it's not even an issue on the part of the agency - my local PD and Sheriff will refer to Flock hits on their FB posts multiple times a week with respect to incidents. But "strangely", neither agency is listed as a Flock-using Agency on their transparency site).

SoftTalker 1y ago
> Flock's founders vision is that Flock will "eliminate all crime" And he quite possibly genuinely believes it. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- hattmall 1y ago
  Is that even good intentions? "Crime" is mostly how the world progresses.
  - leobg 1y ago
    Another way to see it is that Flock merely wants to place itself at the top of the crime food chain.

duxup 1y ago

“Sorry sir, computer says you are suspicious.” That kind of opaque justification seems ripe for abuse.

FireBeyond 1y ago
It's intentional. Flock will bend over backwards to help police, whether they should or shouldn't be.

ChrisArchitect 1y ago

[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44860000 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44860000

delichon 1y ago

What would a constitutional amendment that could head off the panopticon look like? How about The people shall be secure against surveillance of their persons, data, communications, and movements. No government shall collect, compel, or purchase such information except upon a warrant founded on probable cause. Mass or indiscriminate surveillance is prohibited. edit: added "or purchase" per comment.

solid_fuel 1y ago
I believe this wording may leave a loophole, allowing the government to purchase such information from a 3rd party.
- DANmode 1y ago
  As it is now.
elevation 1y ago
In the text above, “Warrant” is used in the colloquial sense (a judicial permission slip) rather than in the literal sense (the extenuating circumstances that prompt or “warrant” the action by law enforcement.) I recommend replacing the language “warrant founded on probable cause” with a statement more specifically limiting the government. For instance, the fourth amendment allows the government to search and seize ONLY IF it can describe beforehand l specifically the scope of the search. Such specific language would also benefit this provision.